Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

edcraw said:
You mentioned you thank pedestrians when they give up their right of way crossing a side street to let you go first. Do you wonder why they do that?
Click to expand...

Not really. When I wait to cross a side road until a car has turned it’s either a courtesy or because I’ve assessed the hazards from e.g. tunnel-visioned cyclists, and think it would be unsafe to force the car to stop on the main road. I assume other pedestrians behave similarly.

edcraw said:
Quite often it’s probably because they’re unsure if your going to stop and don’t want to take the chance. That’s why making these zebras as well would be a great step to reassure pedestrians of their right of way.
Click to expand...

Pedestrians don’t have a right of way crossing side roads if they’re standing on the pavement, and the proposed zebras wouldn’t change that. In fact they’re a terrible idea that will increase casualties. The reason being that there are restrictions on where zebras can be located for a reason - so that pedestrians and drivers can have sight of each other easily and that drivers have sufficient time to make an assessment on whether a pedestrian intends to cross while also checking around their vehicle for other hazards prior to stopping. Slapping zebra paint on corners isn’t going to help anyone and will just cause confusion and deaths.
 
I have to say that I am big in favour of pedestrians having right of way as soon as they want to cross, but I am concerned about the safety aspects of zebras on junctions. My experience of being a pedestrian in places that do this (e.g. Paris) is that it doesn’t help, and that it actually just creates a dangerous version of the game of chicken
 
edcraw said:
But they’re not according precedence, they’re doing what they have to do. I think it’s poor messaging as it makes the driver think they’ve done something worthy of being thanked for and the pedestrian think the driver’s done something they should be grateful for.
Click to expand...
frogdance.jpg
 
eatmorecheese said:
www.theguardian.com

Tourists’ cars may be banned from most popular parts of Lake District

National park chief wants to bring in more sustainable transport to stop worsening congestion
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

This appears to make total sense in this context.
Click to expand...

Another option is to only allow people visit the national parks once in any given year. They have to sign up online and buy a ticket and book from a calendar of times.

I've always thought that people trampling all over the national park land was completely contrary to the reason for preserving the national parks.
 
Restricting access by car is a good way of reducing the general pressure on these places and better than some kind of rationing. As long as it is still possible to get around (which means public transport, walking or cycling) then those who really want to visit (enough to put a bit of effort into planning things) can still do so and can do so as often as they want.

The exact same is happening in parts of scotland. There are places which previously saw a scattering of visitors per day, with a few cars in a small car park or along the verge, which are now rammed with vehicles. And a large number of the people that are coming, get out of their car and walk no more than a few minutes away, do their instagram photos and leave again. These are the high-impact visitors, in the sense that a very large proportion of their time, pollution and congestioning is spent getting to the place and leaving again, and a very small proportion actually being there. Unlike people who arrive and then spend a day or a few days walking and actually enjoying the place fully. Those latter people are also much more likely to be invested in protecting the landscape in the longer term.

Rationing to X visits per year would make little difference to the turn up & go brigade and would have a big impact on the latter group. You'd be restricting those who actually want to use national parks for what they are supposed to be for.
 
platinumsage said:
Not really. When I wait to cross a side road until a car has turned it’s either a courtesy or because I’ve assessed the hazards from e.g. tunnel-visioned cyclists, and think it would be unsafe to force the car to stop on the main road. I assume other pedestrians behave similarly.



Pedestrians don’t have a right of way crossing side roads if they’re standing on the pavement, and the proposed zebras wouldn’t change that. In fact they’re a terrible idea that will increase casualties. The reason being that there are restrictions on where zebras can be located for a reason - so that pedestrians and drivers can have sight of each other easily and that drivers have sufficient time to make an assessment on whether a pedestrian intends to cross while also checking around their vehicle for other hazards prior to stopping. Slapping zebra paint on corners isn’t going to help anyone and will just cause confusion and deaths.
Click to expand...
You can back that last statement up with figures from everywhere around the world where it’s the norm, yes?

I’ll wait all day.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
You can back that last statement up with figures from everywhere around the world where it’s the norm, yes?

I’ll wait all day.
Click to expand...

You can't compare with other countries where it's the norm, because it's not the norm here. If you wanted to compare with other countries you'd have to find somewhere that had zebras and side-road pedestrian priority similar to the UK's current situation but then switched to the proposed system of unlighted zebras at side road corners. If you know of such a country do tell.
 
platinumsage said:
You can't compare with other countries where it's the norm, because it's not the norm here. If you wanted to compare with other countries you'd have to find somewhere that had zebras and side-road pedestrian priority similar to the UK's current situation but then switched to the proposed system of unlighted zebras at side road corners. If you know of such a country do tell.
Click to expand...
Ah. So because something “isn’t the norm”, we don’t change things. Right.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Also, if drivers will get confused and cause accidents because they can’t grasp a simple change of priority at junctions, it kinda makes the point for this entire fucking thread.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should go for a job at the DfT, and you can make drastic changes to technical road regulations that have been carefully developed over decades, and see how many extra casualties you can cause and blame on stupid car drivers.
 
Good point here about how designing communities around cars affects those not able to drive. Have experienced this personally with an elderly relative moving to London exactly because of this and having a ton more freedom.

 
teuchter said:
Restricting access by car is a good way of reducing the general pressure on these places and better than some kind of rationing. As long as it is still possible to get around (which means public transport, walking or cycling) then those who really want to visit (enough to put a bit of effort into planning things) can still do so and can do so as often as they want.

The exact same is happening in parts of scotland. There are places which previously saw a scattering of visitors per day, with a few cars in a small car park or along the verge, which are now rammed with vehicles. And a large number of the people that are coming, get out of their car and walk no more than a few minutes away, do their instagram photos and leave again. These are the high-impact visitors, in the sense that a very large proportion of their time, pollution and congestioning is spent getting to the place and leaving again, and a very small proportion actually being there. Unlike people who arrive and then spend a day or a few days walking and actually enjoying the place fully. Those latter people are also much more likely to be invested in protecting the landscape in the longer term.

Rationing to X visits per year would make little difference to the turn up & go brigade and would have a big impact on the latter group. You'd be restricting those who actually want to use national parks for what they are supposed to be for.
Click to expand...

Yes, people ought to use national parks in a way that old fogies deem appropriate. Visiting for a short time or taking photographs for social media must be stopped! Anyone under 30 should be required to book a minimum week's walking holiday via an approved local travel agency, for which membership of the Ramblers Association will be required. Entry to the park must be via an approved hiking route from the nearest train station.
 
edcraw said:
Good point here about how designing communities around cars affects those not able to drive. Have experienced this personally with an elderly relative moving to London exactly because of this and having a ton more freedom.

Click to expand...

There are other versions of this for example where someone starts to feel they are not confident driving at night any more, and then loads of stuff is restricted to daylight hours unless they can get a lift.

Of course there is also the scenario where elderly people carry on driving when they probably really shouldn't because of deteriorating eyesight or other things. And no-one wants to take someone's independence away but at some point a call has to be made on the grounds of safety. I've seen this happen too, with the call being made by relatives rather than any formal process. And someone goes from being largely self sufficient, to totally dependant on others for basic necessities, overnight.
 
platinumsage said:
Yes, people ought to use national parks in a way that old fogies deem appropriate. Visiting for a short time or taking photographs for social media must be stopped! Anyone under 30 should be required to book a minimum week's walking holiday via an approved local travel agency, for which membership of the Ramblers Association will be required. Entry to the park must be via an approved hiking route from the nearest train station.
Click to expand...
You'd do the North Korea style rationing, then. Interesting.
 
teuchter said:
There are other versions of this for example where someone starts to feel they are not confident driving at night any more, and then loads of stuff is restricted to daylight hours unless they can get a lift.

Of course there is also the scenario where elderly people carry on driving when they probably really shouldn't because of deteriorating eyesight or other things. And no-one wants to take someone's independence away but at some point a call has to be made on the grounds of safety. I've seen this happen too, with the call being made by relatives rather than any formal process. And someone goes from being largely self sufficient, to totally dependant on others for basic necessities, overnight.
Click to expand...
What we should do is move all the old people into the cities against their will.
I'd love to see cities teaming with miserable old people. Oh... Wait...
 
Saul Goodman said:
What we should do is move all the old people into the cities against their will.
I'd love to see cities teaming with miserable old people. Oh... Wait...
Click to expand...

I'm sure mandatory downsizing of old people to flats above pizza shops in cities is their real plan, they want to seize the rural properties for themselves so they can finally keep a motor car.

Of course they'll deny this, and claim the solution they want for rural old people is for them to be served by a network of 24-hour buses going everywhere every 5 minutes.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
The UK:
Oh noes, can’t possibly do something as radical as altering priorities at junctions, it will slow down and confuse car drivers.

Utrecht:
View attachment 296904
Click to expand...

Yes, if you don't mind killing cyclists:

nltimes.nl

2020 posted highest number of cycling casualties in 25 years

2020 saw the highest number of cycling casualties in the last 25 years with 229 deaths reported. One third of all bicycle fatalities were on an e-bike. At the same time, a total of 610 people died in road accidents last year which is the lowest number recorded since 2015, Statistics Netherlands...
nltimes.nl nltimes.nl
 
platinumsage said:
Yes, if you don't mind killing cyclists:

nltimes.nl

2020 posted highest number of cycling casualties in 25 years

2020 saw the highest number of cycling casualties in the last 25 years with 229 deaths reported. One third of all bicycle fatalities were on an e-bike. At the same time, a total of 610 people died in road accidents last year which is the lowest number recorded since 2015, Statistics Netherlands...
nltimes.nl nltimes.nl
Click to expand...

Overijssel, Utrecht and Flevoland saw fewer accidents compared to years before
Click to expand...
 
I presume it’s a slightly late April fools given the date though wouldn’t be too surprised as Peloton does just seem to be a way to rip off people that can’t be bothered to actually cycle.
 
Seems like a good idea to me, you can exercise to your heart's content in whatever way you want while traveling to work, and without having to go through red lights, hurtle into pedestrians or scream blue murder at people.

I don't know why people insist that combining daily exercise with cycling on public roads is a good idea. Getting a good workout and carefully negotiating past other road users don't seem to be compatible activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Entirely unashamed ant car propaganda
Replies
7
Views
408
dessiato
dessiato
ska invita
Car diagnostic computer scanners
Replies
8
Views
280
mauvais
mauvais
kebabking
Car buying websites?
2
Replies
38
Views
951
colacubes
colacubes
danny la rouge
Car insurance rocketing
2 3 4
Replies
108
Views
3K
planetgeli
P
story
Has anyone tried Turo.com for renting a car?
Replies
3
Views
187
Winot
Winot
Back
Top Bottom